While it is obviously not unheard of for colleagues to discuss stories of the day, that wasn’t the case here. This was a group of reputed (or refudiated!) journalists colluding with openly leftist opinionators to not report the news, but to shape it. As evidenced in these postings to JournoList:

Chris Hayes of the Nation wrote in with words of encouragement, and to ask for more talking points. “Keep the ideas coming! Have to go on TV to talk about this in a few min and need all the help I can get,” Hayes wrote.

Time’s Joe Klein then linked to his own piece, parts of which he acknowledged came from strategy sessions on Journolist. “Here’s my attempt to incorporate the accumulated wisdom of this august list-serve community,” he wrote. And indeed Klein’s article contained arguments developed by his fellow Journolisters

Worse, the goal of the framing of the narrative was to marginalize and diminish a woman by using her womanhood itself against her for political means. In fact, one member, Daniel Levy of the Century Foundation, referred to the list as Obama’s “non-official campaign” and admitted he believed it was their job to discredit Palin:

This seems to me like an occasion when the non-official campaign has a big role to play in defining Palin, shaping the terms of the conversation and saying things that the official [Obama] campaign shouldn’t say – very hard-hitting stuff, including some of the things that people have been noting here – scare people about having this woefully inexperienced, no foreign policy/national security/right-wing christia wing-nut a heartbeat away ……

That wasn’t even the worst of it.

What followed was a clear attempt to, once again, Use the Women ™ under the guise of being For The Women ™ by playing up the perpetual victim-hood sexist trump card as a way to dehumanize and demean Sarah Palin and her accomplishments. How did they attempt to do this? An idea first proffered by Suzanne Nossell, ironically of Human Rights Watch. It was then enthusiastically agreed to by more on the list, showing a classic case of femisogyny from the Left:

“I think it is and can be spun as a profoundly sexist pick. Women should feel umbrage at the idea that their votes can be attracted just by putting a woman, any woman, on the ticket no matter her qualifications or views.”

Mother Jones’s Stein loved the idea. “That’s excellent! If enough people – people on this list? – write that the pick is sexist, you’ll have the networks debating it for days. And that negates the SINGLE thing Palin brings to the ticket,” he wrote.

Another writer from Mother Jones, Nick Baumann, had this idea: “Say it with me: ‘Classic GOP Tokenism’.”

The single thing she brings to the ticket — her fancy womb. Once again, liberal femisogynists reducing a woman to the sum of her girly parts only. All while hilariously claiming that they believe women should feel umbrage that their vote should be attracted merely by dint of a fellow woman on the ticket. Hello? That is their entire modus operandi! Even down to the Supreme Court. Aren’t we always supposed to be thrilled when, say, a woman is nominated for the Supreme Court merely because she’s a woman?

This is how they ultimately will end up failing; their hypocrisy knows no bounds and is now incredibly transparent. The depth of their insane hatred for Sarah Palin has done more to expose their femisogyny than anything in my lifetime.

Sarah Palin, with customary courage and straight-talk openness, spoke out about the media to the Daily Caller:

“With the shackles off, I relish my freedom to call it like I see it, while starving the media beast that was devouring the false reports about me, my staff and my loved ones,” she said….

“…The lamestream media is no longer a cornerstone of democracy in America. They need help. They need to regain their credibility and some respect. There are some pretty sick puppies in the industry today. They really need help,” Palin said.

Sick puppies, indeed, as further evidenced by an earlier revelation regarding the more than disturbing desire of a JournoList member to watch Rush Limbaugh die in agony, while she “laughed loudly like a maniac.” What’s more, the list, comprised of mainly white males near as I can tell, indulged in the systematic patriarchal oppression (that’s right, faux feminists, I’m using your own term against you. Because you lie) of a woman merely because she didn’t suit their political agenda. An agenda they used their positions as alleged journalists to further.

While they may have succeeded in aiding Barack Obama to win the election, ultimately they will fail. In part, we can thank Sarah Palin for that. The woman they tried to destroy has actually hoisted them on their own petard, by exposing them for what they are – not journalists, but corrupt ideologues who will stop at nothing, not even personal destruction, to further an agenda.

All these revelations from the Journolist releases are of no surprise to those of us who used rational thought and common sense when looking at the media and their favorable treatment (to put it mildly) of this Administration. It was plain as day but it’s just that the MSM deny it so often that as Lenin said, “A lie told often enough becomes truth” and the useful idiots (another Lenin reference which is so fitting for these liberal tools) drank the Kool-Aid right up and gleefully patted themselves on the back for “making history” as if Obama’s skin color were a qualification. As much as I fault the media and the Admin. for their Marxist and even fascist (wanting to silence opposition for example) I blame the fools who voted for our elected officials who are so destructive and for enabling and watching the 1st Amendment traitors in the MSM.

While the content of you article can be argued (regardless of how she was treated, she is woefully inexperienced), but the picture you use to identify your article is a poor choice. Some one could replace to word Liberal with the word Conservative and it would be just as funny as it is true. The splinter before the speck my dear friends.

Hey Jon, How much experience did “The One” bring to the office? She has more experience than he did upon being inaugurated and for all the blather about her lack of intelligence she is at least his equal. Beside all that Presidents have staff who are supposed to advise them on all matters that they are faced with. B.O.`s staff is not to swift either so I`m sure Ms. Palin would have advisers who were at least as good as they are and probably better.

The idea that the most intelligent make the best president, teacher, manager, whatever, is a bogus argument. I don’t deny that a reasonable level of intelligence is required for any leadership position but the most important factors are vision, conviction, resolve, persuasion, and decisiveness. Anyone that has worked in both successful and unsuccessful organizations can attest to the importance of those factors and not that the leader is the most intelligent of the group. While Sarah Palin may be no Einstein neither is Obama. She does have the afore mentioned qualities though.

I agree that she does have the afore mentioned qualities. My point was that while many of her critics say she is dumb they seem to think “The One” is a genius. I do not know how they arrive at that conclusion. I say Sarah is as intelligent as B.O. is and both of them need advisers to keep them informed on current issues, yet her critics make fun of her because she does not know the name of the leader of Lower Slobovia” or some other third world country. Obama`s grasp of history and current events is not that great either and unfortunately his advisers are giving him some really bad advice.

Sarah Palin was the Vice President Republican candidate NOT the Presidential candidate…you all can’t even compare her to Joe Biden her counter part….Sarah Palin wasn’t Obama’s counter part, that was John McCain. Sarah Palin definitely would have made just as good a Vice President as Joe Biden.

Comparing the Republican Vice Presidential candidate to The Democrat’s Presidential candidate, shows how “insecure” the Left are about their “Choice” after all they didn’t trust Obama to run on his own merit and record, they had to rig the media coverage for him. They just didn’t think he could do it himself – he just wasn’t strong or capable enough to win an election on his own with fair media coverage. That’s what I got out of the publishing of the JournoList.

So, has anyone found anything criminal in this whole “JournoList” scandal yet? If not, then it’s just business as usual, and Lori is feeling victimized by the liberal media again.

No news here.

Just recently, most of the media and right-wing blog community colluded with openly right-wing opinionator Andrew Breitbart to not report the news, but to shape it. As evidenced by edited, out of context footage of Shirley Sherrod supplied by right-wing brick thrower Breitbart to destroy her career simply because he was pissed about the NAACP declaring that there is a racist element in the Tea Party.

That’s one example…if you need a thousand more, just ask.

News Flash! Left-wing media is in the tank for the left! Right-wing media is in the tank for the right! It’s been this way for years! Those “planned attacks” that Lori speaks of emanate from both sides of the political spectrum! Don’t even try to hold journalists or bloggers to any standard of truth and integrity…Those days are behind us now.

Planned attacks…HA! American Crossroads is part of a network of overlapping political groups conceived by Karl Rove and fellow GOP operative Ed Gillespie. Virtually all of the $4.7 million raised by Karl Rove’s new conservative “grassroots” outfit was contributed by just four conservative billionaires. Every penny of that and more will go to extremely well “planned attacks” against Democratic politicans this November. Nasty, brutal attacks…watch and see.

Sarah Palin and Lori both need to toughen up and face the realities of politics and media today. It’s a no holds barred cage match to the death, fueled by partisan ideology and big bucks. Crying “victim” aint gonna shame these guys into toning it down.

Yeah, uh…okay. Which right-wing news organization was withholding or otherwise colluding to misinform their audience on behalf of a Conservative candidate during a general election again?

Oh, and that “edited video” argument lost steam yesterday. Breitbart didn’t edit the video, nor did he fire Mrs. Sherrod. Though I was glad to see that Mrs. Sherrod’s NAACP audience enjoyed her anecdotal racism, so I guess your side hasthat going for them.

“Which right-wing news organization was withholding or otherwise colluding to misinform their audience on behalf of a Conservative candidate during a general election again?”

Really? You don’t think that Fox News was in the bag for McCain in 2008?

Fox is a news organization that describes itself as the “voice of the opposition.” It sources it’s research to conservative blogs. It regularly declares “victory” when White House initiatives fail. It ignores breaking news stories that embarrass the Republican Party. It invites fringe conspiracy theorists to appear on their news shows. It routinely accuses the president of the United States of being like Adolf Hitler. It purchases full-page newspaper ads to spread falsehoods about their competition. It deceptively edits video to bolster their misinformation. They also frame their headlines as “questions” so that they can say anything regardless of the truth.

I’ll just give you a few samples of Fox News misinformation here, and site a few studies which show that Fox viewers are sorely misinformed.

In January 2007, Fox repeatedly aired false charges that Sen. Barack Obama was schooled in a “madrassa.”

E.D. Hill, a Fox News anchor, asked whether Senator Barack Obama and his wife had greeted each other with a “terrorist fist jab.”

“Malik Obama tells The Jerusalem Post that if elected his brother will be a good president for the Jewish people, despite his Muslim background.”

In fact, the article to which Hume was referring indicated that Malik Obama did not speak directly with the Post but, rather, gave an interview to Israel’s Army Radio. Moreover, nowhere in audio of the interview did Malik Obama assert that Obama “will be a good president for the Jewish people, despite his Muslim background.”

FOX hired George W. Bush’s first cousin to run their “decision desk” on Election Night 2000, he called Florida for Bush prematurely, then other media followed his lead.

Fox repeatedly labeled scandal plagued Rep. Mark Foley a Democrat weeks before the 2006 elections. Mark Foley is actually a Republican. They also labeled Mark Sanford a Democrat several times after he was caught cheating on his wife. Mark Sanford is a Republican.

Contrary to anything you’ll hear on Fox News, it was the Bush administration’s Justice Department, not the Obama administration, who made the decision not to pursue criminal charges against members of the New Black Panther Party for alleged voter intimidation at a polling center in Philadelphia in 2008.

June 2010: Fox News anchor Brian Kilmeade falsely claimed BP donated $750 million to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, which would have amounted to the entirety of Obama’s campaign haul, and would have been illegal at that time.

Samples of Fox News dishonest and misleading video editing:

In March 2009, Fox News’s Martha MacCallum presented a clip of Vice President Joe Biden saying “the fundamentals of the economy are strong,” and presented it as from an interview that weekend. In fact, the clip came from a 2008 campaign event at which Biden was quoting Sen. John McCain.

In April 2009, Fox News’s Wendell Goler reported on an Obama question-and-answer session that was edited to make it seem as if the president wanted a health care system “like the European countries.” In fact, he was just restating a question. He went on to say that he opposed such a system.

November 2009: Fox News shows video from a previous rally to play up the number of people who attended a different rally against healthcare.

Fox News aired the James O’Keefe “Acorn” videos which were severely edited to reflect the scandal that they wanted to promote. After being forced to release the full videos it was found that only in the beginning and end of the Internet videos was O’Keefe dressed as a 1970s Superfly pimp, but in his actual taped sessions with ACORN workers, he was dressed in a shirt and tie, and presented himself as a law student. He never claimed that he was a “pimp” when confronting Acorn workers.

In May 2009, Fox News’s Jon Scott said the network had decided to look back on how the stimulus “grew, and grew, and grew.” In fact, the entire report came from a Senate Republican Communications Center press release, complete with typos.

Fox News reporters constantly promoted the Tea Party movement and also lied about coverage of the September Tea Party march on Washington in an full page newspaper ad. Fox News talking head Dick Morris and Fox host Mike Huckabee have previously used Fox News shows to raise money for Republican political action committees, and Fox News’ promotion of the Tea Party Express also helped a Republican PAC with fundraising.

A 2003 University of Maryland study found that Fox News viewers were far more likely than other networks’ viewers to be misinformed about whether Saddam Hussein was linked to 9/11 Al Qaeda terrorists, and whether weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.

A 2008 Pew study ranked Fox News dead last in the number of “high knowledge” viewers, with only 19 percent of Fox viewers able to correctly identify the majority party in Congress (Democrats), the name of the U.S. Secretary of State (Condoleezza Rice), and name of British Prime Minister (Gordon Brown).

In 2000, Fox News lost a court case in Florida in which two reporters were fired for refusing to include false information in a report they were working on. During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute the claim by the plaintiff that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so.

In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

So you see…Fox News has now proven the legality of distorting and falsifying news content. It’s fine to point out when news organizations lie or collude to misrepresent the facts, but it’s time to realize that this is “business as usual” for the media today on both sides.

If you want more samples of Fox News lying to the public to further its agenda, let me know, because I’m just scratching the surface here.

Well, that’s quite a Media Matters list. How about some links next time.

None of your examples are attributable at all to an effort to sway votes to one candidate from another. You can’t say “FoxNews was in the bag for John McCain in 2008” and not mention that the NYT, Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, LAT, SPT, etc. were in the bag for Barack Obama. Additionally, even if writers, producers, interns or otherwise from FoxNews colluded to misrepresent Barack Obama -a claim based loosely on evidence provided by George Soros’ Media Matters and DKos talking points- the only outlet for such reporting was…FoxNews. Placed in context, the cast of 400 had much greater access to the voting public. The emails released by the DC indicate that that’s exactly what they were trying to do, and the evidence of their success is documented in countless video and print reports. In fact, their efforts to at best not examine Barack Obama’s limited abilities as a manager, and at worst hide those known deficiencies by changing the subject to something as despicable as race-baiting, are coming back to haunt them as so many are now suffering that bitter taste of regret.

Additionally, you’re obviously lumping the opinion shows on FNC with the straight news shows. Feel free to provide those links but eliminate anything from 7:00 pm on. Failure to do so will only illustrate an inability to separate those two venues.

So, I’ll look forward to your links. And a simple reminder if you wish to hang onto whatever thread of legitimacy you’re trying to assert: links from organizations with an axe to grind will not be considered unbiased.

And you’re lumping academics, bloggers, and political activists in with mainstream journalists when you cry about the JournoList.

BKeyser says:

“Placed in context, the cast of 400 had much greater access to the voting public.”

If you wish to hang onto whatever thread of legitimacy you’re trying to assert, then provide me a link that proves that any more than 10% of those 400 people even participated in the email chains that The Daily Caller is working with.

YouTube is the only link you’ll ever need to source my last post. It’s all there in living color and sound. Just search for “Fox News Misinformation.”

But, you personally need this particular link the most. It’s a scholarly study based on empirical evidence, so I’m not sure that you’ll be able to come to terms with it. You can just read the abstract if it’s too much for you.

Well, lets start with your first point on the Daily Caller not publishing all of the emails they have access to. Sure, the DC has an axe to grind. Most of their bloggers are conservative, as is Tucker Carlson; as we’re all well aware.

Explain to me why The Daily Caller only described the email chain it obtained, and didn’t just publish the entire chain for all to read.

It’s because many of those on those email chains were arguing against what a tiny percentage of JournoList members were advocating for. But The Daily Caller doesn’t want you to read those emails.

Not being privy to the emails, I can only quote Tucker Carlson:So why don’t we publish whatever portions of the Journolist archive we have and end the debate? Because a lot of them have no obvious news value, for one thing. Gather 400 lefty reporters and academics on one listserv and it turns out you wind up with a strikingly high concentration of bitchiness. Shocking amounts, actually. So while it might be amusing to air threads theorizing about the personal and sexual shortcomings of various New Republic staffers, we’ve decided to pull back.

Can you explain how you became privy to the emails? I mean, you answered your own question and I’m wondering how you determined it to be the truth as opposed to what the site’s owner wrote.

Yes, there were academicians and other liberals on the list that do not have columns in major newspapers. Of course, so far we only know the names of about 65 listers, from a reported 400 or so. But you’re probably right, nothing to see here, lets move on. Oh, one more thing on this before we do… While some, including Ezra Klein had the integrity to temper calls for a coordinated effort through JList to explicitly promote the Obama campaign, it was clear that some, including “Luke Mitchell, then a senior editor at Harper’s magazine […] But it seems to me that a concerted effort on the part of the left partisan press could be useful. Why geld ourselves? A lot of the people on this list work for organizations that are far more influential than, say, the Washington Times.” I find it particularly interesting -in this piece- how the academic Todd Gitlin of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism clearly called for a coordinated effort to deride the McCain Campaign. But I guess his position is really not all that relevant, especially in such a no-name school and even lesser-known program, huh?

Now lets analyze that youtube page. You are aware that youtube allows people to make video, edit it, and upload it in whatever form they wish, right? I mean, as long as it stays within the guidelines of the site, that is. Truthfulness is not a guideline, btw. But beyond that: I count roughly 22 headlines on the first page of your youtube bible. 3 are from Media Matters. The first is from firedoglake (are you kidding me?) Two are from some stoner called LiberalViewer. Ooo, and SocialistLiberal invokes Paul Krugman! But I was greatly impressed with DemocraticBlogger’s 10 minute dissertation on the failings Fox News and in particular, a producer “ginning up the crowd” at a conservative event. Funny how that topic is coming up in this thread, right after the Netroots convention. I wonder if DemocraticBlogger will lob the same bombs at Ed Schultz?

I’ve downloaded the 50-page pdf you linked, and when I get a chance to read through it, I’ll try to respond.

Beyond that, if you’re going to make this about FNC then at least recognize that MSNBC is All-Barry, All-Day. Anything to deflect from the actual subject matter at hand, eh? That being Journolist and their colluded efforts to shape the news in favor of the Democratic candidate for POTUS…

What Carlson says is that JournoList is extremely important because it was a place where liberal elites congregated to synchronize their line of attack, but Journolist is extremely unimportant because a lot of what was going on on the list was “bitchy?

Bad argument.

1. “Luke Mitchell, then a senior editor at Harper’s magazine”

Circulation: 220,000 liberal readers. Yawn.

2. “Todd Gitlin of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism clearly called for a coordinated effort to deride the McCain Campaign.”

BKeyser says:

“I guess his position is really not all that relevant, especially in such a no-name school and even lesser-known program, huh?”

Not relevant at all unless it proves a conspiracy, which it doesn’t.

When the Daily Caller can deliver a significant number of emails that indicate a true coordinated conspiracy between powerful liberal journalists, maybe this story will get some legs beyond the right-wing blogs, Fox News, and the Rush Limbaugh Show. Until then, the entire JournoList story is basically a right-wing media conspiracy highlighting a few suggestions by a few people who definitely did not have “greater access to the voting public” than Fox News.

Here’s what Ezra Klein, founder of JournoList has to say about Tucker Carlson and his “statement” that you quoted from.

You asked why the DC hasn’t published all of the emails (they’re still publishing, btw) and when I quoted the publisher’s exact response to your question, you call that bad argument. And the fact that Harper’s Magazine has low readership is more a reflection on the people at Harper’s than this discussion. Again, a strawman.

For the record:Conspiracy
con·spir·a·cy [kuhn-spir-uh-see]
1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4. Law . an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

I will concede that it’s more than likely that laws were not broken as a result of Journolist. In fact, I don’t know that anyone has even made such a claim. I think “nefarious” has been the general reaction as opposed to criminal. But to suggest that there was no conspiracy on the part of any member of JList, and that the whole thing is a right-wing conspiracy is Hillary Clinton-delusional.

In the future, if you wish to debate honestly, you should try not to argue the unprovable, and instead stick to the facts on hand. I respect that you have a differing opinion from myself, and I don’t care if your moral standing considers Journolist and their actions righteous. You have a right to your opinion (which is ironic given that some on the JList roll wanted desperately to shape the opinions of voters with misleading information and race-baiting tactics -effectively denying their right to formulate their own opinions) but the constant fallacy arguments reduce the effectiveness of your position.

Read the PDF. You are that partisan who’s misperceptions are only reinforced by being corrected with the truth. All things are biased, and can be dismissed out of hand if they don’t agree with your version of reality. I’d love for you to prove that even one of my samples of Fox misinformation is false, but you can’t. Instead, you simply claim that my sources are biased, and therefore none of it could possibly be true. That’s just weak.

Those comments on JournoList are not “righteous”…they are unethical. But until there is proof that many members agreed to go along with those comments, you have no case for conspiracy.

If proof comes to light, I’ll be the first one here apologizing to you.

I’m willing to take that DC article at face value, even though it comes from a conservative source. I can see that there is truth in it regardless of the spin that the author lays down. I only wish that you could admit the same about liberal sources, and see past the spin to the truth.

I see no conflict with former Journolist members serving in government posts. I also see no conflict in campaign workers joining Journolist after they had left the campaign. It appears that with all the names mentioned in the beginning of that article, only Jared Bernstein was an “unpaid surrogate to Obama” (whatever that is) while still a member of Journolist. As a former member, Bernstein emailed Ezra Klein about a potential conference call with journolisters while working for the Vice President as an economic adviser.

He got a whole 14 journolisters to “express interest” (how many participated?) in his conference call trying to get more progressive support for policy.

The only piece of supportive writing that Daily Caller can site as a result of that conference call is a short opinion article by Matt Yglesias?

I’m skeptical that one supportive article changed many progressive minds. Besides, to put it in your own words, the incident described has nothing to do with “the actual subject matter at hand, eh? That being Journolist and their colluded efforts to shape the news in favor of the Democratic candidate for POTUS”

There’s no election fraud here. No trying to influence voters during an election year. This was an example of liberal/progressives trying to influence progressive/liberal opinion, nothing more.

The real “money” quote from Jeff Hauser (who?) in the DC article seems to say that if in fact Obama won the debate with McCain, that liberal journalists should do everything they could to combat conservative spin so that the voting public would view it for what it was…an “actual” win by Obama.

From the article:

” ..an actual Obama debate win to be viewed as such by a sufficient proportion of media elites that voters know it was a win.”

“Of course, this only works if Obama does as we expect”

“Journolist’s greatest challenge is to make sure an actual win by Obama translates into winning the battle for political impact.”

The “battle for political impact” being to best the conservative media narrative in those “intense 72 hours of post-debate coverage.”

The author of the article states that Hauser “straightforwardly asked working journalists on the list to skew their coverage in order to help the Democratic candidate”

I don’t think that he asked anyone to “skew” coverage. What he said was that if Obama did win the debate that journalists should make sure that the public knew he did. If Obama lost the debate, then the strategy wouldn’t work.

The author of the article goes on to say:

“In the conversation that followed Hauser’s post, not one Journolister expressed surprise or disapproval. No one rebuked Hauser for telling journalists how to carry water for a politician.”

No one “expressed surprise or disapproval”? No one “rebuked” Hauser?

This can only mean one of two things. Either the conversation that followed Hauser’s post was full of approval and support, and The Daily Caller didn’t feel that any of those comments were worthy of posting, which I find very hard to believe, or the only one posting anything following Hauser’s post was “no one.”

This story is still only about a few liberals spouting off on a listserv. This is the biggest controversy I’ve yet to find involving this story.

Oh- regarding the prestigious Helen Thomas seat: Personally, I don’t know what the big deal is. Front row- big deal. It’s a small room and the Gibbs will call on Major Garrett no more or less, regardless of where he’s sitting. If Fox complains, it’ll appear catty. Besides, if MG moves, he’ll have to rename his blog.

Make that “widespread conspiracy” since you seem to want to imply that if only two people out of the 400 on JournoList agreed to disparage McCain then that would amount to proof of the liberal media conspiracy that The Daily Caller is trying to fabricate.

I wasn’t interested in continuing this debate as it obviously wasn’t on the level, but I just ran across this take from someone on your side of the aisle and thought you might be interested in reading it. It neither proves, nor disproves anything we’ve discussed, though it does mention the word “conspiracy” on more than one occasion.

And as long as I’m here: your final comment that moves the goalposts of the discussion (“Make that ‘widespread conspiracy'”) is exactly what I mean about not being on the level. Regardless, I didn’t imply anything about the numbers involved in a conspiracy, I simply provided the dictionary definition for the word.

I’m sorry LuvLori. I am a relatively new poster here at Snark, but I’ve been reading Ms. Ziganto in the GreenRoom for some time. I find her work engaging and I appreciate her witty touch. As such, I felt some desire to participate on her blog. But I do apologize if there is a one-comment rule for transplants; or something.

I also wasn’t aware that my comments or Molten’s comments were required reading. Please ignore my latest comment (above). I’ll be sure to bother you no longer.

You Know You Want To RSS Me!

Vote and stuff

Subscribe to Me! You know, via email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 267 other followers

Snark. And Boobs!

Exposing Asshattery in Washington, DC (and elsewhere if it makes me froth at the mouth), from a dame’s point of view. Hence, the snark and boobs. Probably should have said nag and boobs, but snark has a better ring to it. Contact info: Snarkandboobs@gmail.com

Stimulate Me!

Minds out of the gutter! Not THAT way. The Stimulus Package way. Oh .. that sounds just as bad. Oh, well.